JohnnyC:untaken_name: JohnnyC: So your plan is to pretend that Christians who do horrible things are actually atheists who infiltrate religious venues to hide and find victims? Then you have the audacity to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with your position is naive.

Not to derail your righteous rage, but I didn't read the post you're responding to in that light. More in the light that it is the sickness and twistedness inside the people that is making them act in a sick and twisted fashion. Not that it's some sort of fifth column organized effort to discredit a religion. But that some people are bad, and some of those bad people pretend to be things they aren't - Christians, educators, mentors, family friends, etc - and then use the trust gained by their position to take advantage of others. Hey, maybe I'm wrong and the OP really did mean that it was an organized infiltratory effort by atheists, but I'll just present the above as an alternative to that.

Perhaps if he hadn't said:

MagicMissile: Unfortunately there are a lot of non religious evil twisted farkers out there that see Christianity and other religious venues as a place to hide and find victims.

... I might be inclined to agree. But he did.

If a police officer does something horrible to someone else, do we suddenly say that he/she was never actually a police officer at all and was an anarchist hiding in the police force to look for victims? No... we say, "that police officer did something horrible". That person might get kicked off the police force for their actions, but he/she was still a member of the police.

By stating that some people might be "non-religious" comitting these crimes within other religions... I am simply stating that there are posers pretending to be Christians or Islamics or Buddhists or what have you.. stop taking everything so personally. I didn't come out and say "Those dirty atheists did it"

I am trying to shed some light that people will use the names of Religions on Colleges for instance to get funding, to attract a certain type of person, for protections under the 1st Amendment.. for extra protections from the Police... and there are people that will join or create these organizations because it provides cover so they can commit their crimes as well.

Stop getting so worked up and defensive over everything I say.. and stop acting like everyone is out to persecute you.

There is though. Call it something else if you like. It's kind of an offshoot of just world theory: If something bad happened to you, you probably deserved it in some way. Why is it so common to ask questions like "what was she wearing?" or "was she drinking?" or "why was she alone with that guy?"

If a group of pedophiles started a school for boys age 3-12 and named it "Athiest school for Boys" and then received funding from atheists, political and police protections , and then started child molesting and so on... does that mean that every Atheist is a child molester and a pedophile?

Or does it meant that a group of sick people started that thing up for money and victims? I am sorry but people are sick and evil and these twisted farkers will do anything to get their rocks off.

Some of you are going to go out and bash Christianity for half of your day and then spend the other half preaching about human rights and freedoms, gay rights, and claim you are against prejudice and stereotyping and so on.

All I am saying is that the Christian religion teaches that everything this school did is evil and wrong.... if you are an axe murderer that attends church every day.... I am sorry but you are not a Christian Axe Murderer... you are still just an axe murder that goes to Church every day.

MagicMissile:If a group of pedophiles started a school for boys age 3-12 and named it "Athiest school for Boys" and then received funding from atheists, political and police protections , and then started child molesting and so on... does that mean that every Atheist is a child molester and a pedophile?

Or does it meant that a group of sick people started that thing up for money and victims? I am sorry but people are sick and evil and these twisted farkers will do anything to get their rocks off.

Some of you are going to go out and bash Christianity for half of your day and then spend the other half preaching about human rights and freedoms, gay rights, and claim you are against prejudice and stereotyping and so on.

All I am saying is that the Christian religion teaches that everything this school did is evil and wrong.... if you are an axe murderer that attends church every day.... I am sorry but you are not a Christian Axe Murderer... you are still just an axe murder that goes to Church every day.

Nobody is saying "All Christians are XYZ". We're saying that, like it or not, these are Christians. If a group of atheist pedos started a school for young boys, we'd still acknowledge that they were atheists. They'd just be atheists who happen to also be pedophile jerks.

/atheist//knows that assholes can be atheists too///I'm looking at you, Ayn Rand

ThrobblefootSpectre:Fury Pilot: Found at least one on the first page : http://www.vice.com/read/sexual-abuse-has-become-a-huge-problem-for-a m ericas-bible-colleges

Vice.com. Interesting. Google might be taking you to specific, um, special interest, sites based on your search history. I just repeated the search and see nothing but general admissions information and such in either "News" or "Web" tabs. Anyway.... this post again says nothing about a police report or a crime. It is a third hand account that an accusation was made, no one was expelled (or at least the article doesn't say so), and none of it is verified by the college or anyone else.

For what it's worth, Vice has done some of the best investigative journalism over the last year in the Ukraine, Russia, and the ME. Frankly, when they want to cover a topic, they do a better job than CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, FNC, etc..

tlars699:Not to Godwin the "They're not really Xtians!!" group or anything, but Hitler was a Christian, and used Christianity as a front for all of his evil malicious deeds. That's part of the reason all of the Christians in Germany were so willing to follow him.

There is enough to criticize Christians about without having to make shiat up.

I am a Christian. I don't tolerate Christians who commit crimes against women, or use drugs, or cheat on their taxes.... fill in the blank.

What I don't see is a bunch of Christians coming into this thread and defending the rapist or the school. I think if you took a poll most Christians would say "let the rapist rot in prison." That's how I feel, if that were my daughter I would be on the warpath, and I am outraged at this behavior even though this woman is not my daughter.

Weirdly every time a muslim commits an atrocity I do see CAIR release statements defending the perpetrator. Whenever a black athelete commits a crime Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton defend the perpetrator. Whenever a quaterback commits a crime, members of the NFL go on Sports Center and defend the perpetrator. Why? It is human nature to want our institutions to not be corrupt, to want to believe the best in the organizations that we spend our time and capitol on.

I am a member of the military, that freely admits it has a "rape culture" and has spent close to $$1Billion dollars on education programs meant to combat it. I refuse to defend our leadership that has failed in this regard. The military has a rape culture because it has failed to hold rapists accountable.

If Pensacola Chistian fails to hold its students and faculty accountable, they are the worst kind of Christians. Jesus said it would be better if a "mill-stone were hung around their necks and they were thrown into the ocean," then they face the wrath of the last days. All of this is an "if" because we can't substantiate it one way or the other. The blog references nothing and points us back to nothing to base an assertion on. That doesn't mean that this doesn't happen every day in Churches across America. Also happens in schools, in the military and in the corporate culture.

The real question is when are organizations (of any type) going to stop tolerating this?

scotchlandia:I am a Christian. I don't tolerate Christians who commit crimes against women, or use drugs, or cheat on their taxes.... fill in the blank.

What I don't see is a bunch of Christians coming into this thread and defending the rapist or the school. I think if you took a poll most Christians would say "let the rapist rot in prison." That's how I feel, if that were my daughter I would be on the warpath, and I am outraged at this behavior even though this woman is not my daughter.

Weirdly every time a muslim commits an atrocity I do see CAIR release statements defending the perpetrator. Whenever a black athelete commits a crime Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton defend the perpetrator. Whenever a quaterback commits a crime, members of the NFL go on Sports Center and defend the perpetrator. Why? It is human nature to want our institutions to not be corrupt, to want to believe the best in the organizations that we spend our time and capitol on.

I am a member of the military, that freely admits it has a "rape culture" and has spent close to $$1Billion dollars on education programs meant to combat it. I refuse to defend our leadership that has failed in this regard. The military has a rape culture because it has failed to hold rapists accountable.

If Pensacola Chistian fails to hold its students and faculty accountable, they are the worst kind of Christians. Jesus said it would be better if a "mill-stone were hung around their necks and they were thrown into the ocean," then they face the wrath of the last days. All of this is an "if" because we can't substantiate it one way or the other. The blog references nothing and points us back to nothing to base an assertion on. That doesn't mean that this doesn't happen every day in Churches across America. Also happens in schools, in the military and in the corporate culture.

The real question is when are organizations (of any type) going to stop tolerating this?

-J

Translation: "I'm a bigot, and I personally ignore all the plentiful evidence of people defending this, chastising Muslims, and I really can't even imagine that my religion played an active roll in this happening, even though plentiful elements of my religion actively endorse rapists over the raped"

The hopeless imp:Lady Indica: I think there's certainly more to the story...but it doesn't matter in the context of what the article asserts. She was rescued by campus police (so really no question here about the rape, even if there may be a question *who* did it), taken to a hospital, etc and upon returning to school the next day was expelled for being a fornicator.

Immediately after being brutally raped, bones broken, she was expelled for being a fornicator.

And then there's the guy. How do you go from wanting to be an actor to getting gang-raped prison-style by your roommates?

Ant:MagicMissile: If a group of pedophiles started a school for boys age 3-12 and named it "Athiest school for Boys" and then received funding from atheists, political and police protections , and then started child molesting and so on... does that mean that every Atheist is a child molester and a pedophile?

Or does it meant that a group of sick people started that thing up for money and victims? I am sorry but people are sick and evil and these twisted farkers will do anything to get their rocks off.

Some of you are going to go out and bash Christianity for half of your day and then spend the other half preaching about human rights and freedoms, gay rights, and claim you are against prejudice and stereotyping and so on.

All I am saying is that the Christian religion teaches that everything this school did is evil and wrong.... if you are an axe murderer that attends church every day.... I am sorry but you are not a Christian Axe Murderer... you are still just an axe murder that goes to Church every day.

Nobody is saying "All Christians are XYZ". We're saying that, like it or not, these are Christians. If a group of atheist pedos started a school for young boys, we'd still acknowledge that they were atheists. They'd just be atheists who happen to also be pedophile jerks.

/atheist//knows that assholes can be atheists too///I'm looking at you, Ayn Rand

I'll bet that the guy you're replying to would have no problem referring to that pedo as an "atheist pedo" instead of just calling him a pedo who associates with atheists.

Try thinking with something larger than a nutshell and perhaps you'll better comprehend the topic.

She got expelled from a college BECAUSE she was raped and, according to you, it's somewhat HER fault... Christian college or not it's REALLY stupid to blame her for being expelled as a result of this pesky rape incident...

hestheone:FTA: "One night in May, however, she was grabbed, dragged into a construction area, beaten, restrained with bungee cord and duct tape, and then raped. As he was leaving her there, she recognized him as her boyfriend "

Yeah, sounds legit.

I imagine that, for this account to make sense, the attacker must have worn a mask or done something to disguise his identity, which later failed somehow. For example, perhaps he wore a mask which he took off as he was leaving because he thought she was unconscious. Or possibly he had been silent until, as he was leaving, he spoke, and she recognized his voice.

ciberido:doglover: kortex: What do you expect for sending your kids to a school based around made up crap?

Math is just made up crap.

No, it isn't. Like distant galaxies, mathematics existed long before humans discovered it.

Idiots really believe everything is subjective, even math itself. A friend of mine at Fairfield was taking a class called "Philosophy of Mathematics"... when she described the class, I damn near raged hard enough to have an aneurysm pop.

ciberido:doglover: kortex: What do you expect for sending your kids to a school based around made up crap?

Math is just made up crap.

No, it isn't. Like distant galaxies, mathematics existed long before humans discovered it.

As a mathematically educated person, I would take a middle ground between those two positions. It isn't (entirely) made up crap, but neither is math some immutable property of the universe. First of all there is no singular "math", humans have invented many math systems, some of which look at things in different ways. For example in Galois field math, basic operations such as addition and subtraction are defined differently than you are used to - simply because it is useful to do so in some situations.

Maths are systems of formal logic. Which means they are models by which we represent and work on concepts. Godel proved that our math systems (formal logic systems) cannot be both complete and internally consistent. We get to choose one, (or neither).

It may also be telling about the general consensus on this subject, that most (all) mathematicians refer to Newton as having "developed" calculus, not "discovered" it. And likewise for for all other fields of math. Galois developed new fields of math, he didn't "discover" them as if they were a pre-existing entity. We (humans) define the rules as we find useful to model certain concepts.

grumpfuff:I don't have the innate hostility towards Christians that you seem to. But then again, I'm in libby lib NJ, so most of the ones I know are Christians, not Paulists.

This was the very attitude that annoying me. "The bad people, they're not Christians, not real ones like I know, so we can ignore this". I wasn't annoyed at Christians, I was annoyed at stupid deflections.

ikanreed:grumpfuff: I don't have the innate hostility towards Christians that you seem to. But then again, I'm in libby lib NJ, so most of the ones I know are Christians, not Paulists.

This was the very attitude that annoying me. "The bad people, they're not Christians, not real ones like I know, so we can ignore this". I wasn't annoyed at Christians, I was annoyed at stupid deflections.

Forgive me for not lumping everyone together, and acknowledging that, like with any label, there are good ones and bad ones.

Though I admittedly did phrase is poorly, as I consider "Paulist" as a subset of "Christian"

scotchlandia:I am a Christian. I don't tolerate Christians who commit crimes against women, or use drugs, or cheat on their taxes.... fill in the blank.

What I don't see is a bunch of Christians coming into this thread and defending the rapist or the school. I think if you took a poll most Christians would say "let the rapist rot in prison." That's how I feel, if that were my daughter I would be on the warpath, and I am outraged at this behavior even though this woman is not my daughter.

Weirdly every time a muslim commits an atrocity I do see CAIR release statements defending the perpetrator. Whenever a black athelete commits a crime Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton defend the perpetrator. Whenever a quaterback commits a crime, members of the NFL go on Sports Center and defend the perpetrator. Why? It is human nature to want our institutions to not be corrupt, to want to believe the best in the organizations that we spend our time and capitol on.

I am a member of the military, that freely admits it has a "rape culture" and has spent close to $$1Billion dollars on education programs meant to combat it. I refuse to defend our leadership that has failed in this regard. The military has a rape culture because it has failed to hold rapists accountable.

If Pensacola Chistian fails to hold its students and faculty accountable, they are the worst kind of Christians. Jesus said it would be better if a "mill-stone were hung around their necks and they were thrown into the ocean," then they face the wrath of the last days. All of this is an "if" because we can't substantiate it one way or the other. The blog references nothing and points us back to nothing to base an assertion on. That doesn't mean that this doesn't happen every day in Churches across America. Also happens in schools, in the military and in the corporate culture.

The real question is when are organizations (of any type) going to stop tolerating this?

grumpfuff:ikanreed: grumpfuff: I don't have the innate hostility towards Christians that you seem to. But then again, I'm in libby lib NJ, so most of the ones I know are Christians, not Paulists.

This was the very attitude that annoying me. "The bad people, they're not Christians, not real ones like I know, so we can ignore this". I wasn't annoyed at Christians, I was annoyed at stupid deflections.

Forgive me for not lumping everyone together, and acknowledging that, like with any label, there are good ones and bad ones.

Though I admittedly did phrase is poorly, as I consider "Paulist" as a subset of "Christian"

That's exactly what you did do though. You made this assertion that there was this clear divide into groups of good people and bad people, based on some arbitrary religious difference. The only fundamental relationship Christianity has with rape is the rules outlined in the bible, and they aren't good ones.

grumpfuff:ikanreed: grumpfuff: I don't have the innate hostility towards Christians that you seem to. But then again, I'm in libby lib NJ, so most of the ones I know are Christians, not Paulists.

This was the very attitude that annoying me. "The bad people, they're not Christians, not real ones like I know, so we can ignore this". I wasn't annoyed at Christians, I was annoyed at stupid deflections.

Forgive me for not lumping everyone together, and acknowledging that, like with any label, there are good ones and bad ones.

Though I admittedly did phrase is poorly, as I consider "Paulist" as a subset of "Christian"

What's your religion?I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

"Religious."

"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

ikanreed:grumpfuff: ikanreed: grumpfuff: I don't have the innate hostility towards Christians that you seem to. But then again, I'm in libby lib NJ, so most of the ones I know are Christians, not Paulists.

This was the very attitude that annoying me. "The bad people, they're not Christians, not real ones like I know, so we can ignore this". I wasn't annoyed at Christians, I was annoyed at stupid deflections.

Forgive me for not lumping everyone together, and acknowledging that, like with any label, there are good ones and bad ones.

Though I admittedly did phrase is poorly, as I consider "Paulist" as a subset of "Christian"

That's exactly what you did do though. You made this assertion that there was this clear divide into groups of good people and bad people, based on some arbitrary religious difference. The only fundamental relationship Christianity has with rape is the rules outlined in the bible, and they aren't good ones.

So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

Eh... in words, maybe? The Koran is pretty flowery in a new testamenty kinda way. In pragmatic reality, the same fundamental hang-ups(you know, non-questioning of answers, strict gender roles, people doing horrible things thinking themselves moral and good) cause even worse problems in the real world.

Eh... in words, maybe? The Koran is pretty flowery in a new testamenty kinda way. In pragmatic reality, the same fundamental hang-ups(you know, non-questioning of answers, strict gender roles, people doing horrible things thinking themselves moral and good) cause even worse problems in the real world.

Oh mai, I didn't mean to say it was a moral way to live your life. Just a slightly nicer creed then Christianity.

grumpfuff:So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

MagicMissile:If a group of pedophiles started a school for boys age 3-12 and named it "Athiest school for Boys" and then received funding from atheists, political and police protections , and then started child molesting and so on... does that mean that every Atheist is a child molester and a pedophile?

Or does it meant that a group of sick people started that thing up for money and victims? I am sorry but people are sick and evil and these twisted farkers will do anything to get their rocks off.

Some of you are going to go out and bash Christianity for half of your day and then spend the other half preaching about human rights and freedoms, gay rights, and claim you are against prejudice and stereotyping and so on.

All I am saying is that the Christian religion teaches that everything this school did is evil and wrong.... if you are an axe murderer that attends church every day.... I am sorry but you are not a Christian Axe Murderer... you are still just an axe murder that goes to Church every day.

They are a Christian axe murderer because they self-identify most importantly as a Christian to begin with. They are a Christian axe murderer when they use their faith to defend their actions or persecute their victims. Christianity is a hot mess.

These fundies can't even get it right. Jesus and his teachings supercede the Old Testament, essentially making the the OT as history book as it relates to the Israelites plights. They love to hit the Gospels when they talk about love and forgiveness as Jesus taught.

But as soon as you need some fire and brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth and judgments against the other; they trot out the OT or the ridiculous letters written in the NT to the new churches by the surviving apostles after Christ died.

MagicMissile:Unfortunately there are a lot of non religious evil twisted farkers out there that see Christianity and other religious venues as a place to hide and find victims.

Everyone sins, including Christians. Just because a Christian sins it doesn't mean he's a "fake" Christian. If he believes in Jesus and asks forgiveness, no amount of heinous crimes against humanity can take his personal relationship with Jesus away. There are monsters in your midst. Claiming they don't 'count' as a part of your group is a cop-out. I suggest you take action in stopping their behaviour because they just keep making your religion look worse and worse.

ikanreed:grumpfuff: So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

There are plenty of Christians I don't approve of, Paulists are only one sub set. Prosperity Gospel types are another one, for example. "Christians" isn't a designation for the ones I like, it's a designation for people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, I phrased that part poorly.

And it is hard for me to judge them all based on the Bible when not all of them hold it for the literal truth, just like it is hard for me to judge them all based on churches because different sects have different churches and hierarchies. Yes, the OT has some nasty things to say about rape, but not all Christians think the OT is right(and I mean the ones who toss out the whole OT, not just pick and chose the parts they like).

The "defining elements" of Christianity are a) Monotheism and b) Jesus. Everything else varies from group to group.

It's too late not to turn this into a religious debate, but tell me what I'm missing here:

"We believe a man called Jesus is literally god, because the bible says so, but the bible isn't literally true." Isn't that an intuitively nutso position? I mean once you dismiss the bible as absolute truth, there's nothing substantiating Jesus as God at all. I mean, "I personally believe one of the most unsubstantiated claims of the bible, while thinking other parts of it silly".

I get that there are people who put no thought into it, but I'm trying to not presume that's what's going on with these people. Why would this seem like a logical improvement on the position?

grumpfuff:ikanreed: grumpfuff: So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

There are plenty of Christians I don't approve of, Paulists are only one sub set. Prosperity Gospel types are another one, for example. "Christians" isn't a designation for the ones I like, it's a designation for people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, I phrased that part poorly.

And it is hard for me to judge them all based on the Bible when not all of them hold it for the literal truth, just like it is hard for me to judge them all based on churches because different sects have different churches and hierarchies. Yes, the OT has some nasty things to say about rape, but not all Christians think the OT is right(and I mean the ones who toss out the whole OT, not just pick and chose the parts they like).

The "defining elements" of Christianity are a) Monotheism and b) Jesus. Everything else varies from group to group.

firefly212:ciberido: doglover: kortex: What do you expect for sending your kids to a school based around made up crap?

Math is just made up crap.

No, it isn't. Like distant galaxies, mathematics existed long before humans discovered it.

Idiots really believe everything is subjective, even math itself. A friend of mine at Fairfield was taking a class called "Philosophy of Mathematics"... when she described the class, I damn near raged hard enough to have an aneurysm pop.

See my previous -p-o-s-t. Things like that should not drive you into a rage. And not everything is black and white definable in absolute terms. Not formal logic, and not even reality itself, as we are discovering more and more. Get over the idea that you know everything, or even that everything is knowable. It's looking more and more like not everything is knowable (at least not all at once in one time and space, for example, by a human). Both our limited systems of formal logic and physics agree on that. (Relax a bit, and go apologize to your friend.)

You should also get over the idea that anyone who expresses an idea you don't like is an idiot.

stonicus:grumpfuff: ikanreed: grumpfuff: So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

There are plenty of Christians I don't approve of, Paulists are only one sub set. Prosperity Gospel types are another one, for example. "Christians" isn't a designation for the ones I like, it's a designation for people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, I phrased that part poorly.

And it is hard for me to judge them all based on the Bible when not all of them hold it for the literal truth, just like it is hard for me to judge them all based on churches because different sects have different churches and hierarchies. Yes, the OT has some nasty things to say about rape, but not all Christians think the OT is right(and I mean the ones who toss out the whole OT, not just pick and chose the parts they like).

The "defining elements" of Christianity are a) Monotheism and b) Jesus. Everything else varies from group to group.

The irony... it burns!

You may be shocked to learn this, but context matters.

Judging them for not holding to beliefs they claim to hold =/= judging them for the content of their book

grumpfuff:stonicus: grumpfuff: ikanreed: grumpfuff: So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

There are plenty of Christians I don't approve of, Paulists are only one sub set. Prosperity Gospel types are another one, for example. "Christians" isn't a designation for the ones I like, it's a designation for people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, I phrased that part poorly.

And it is hard for me to judge them all based on the Bible when not all of them hold it for the literal truth, just like it is hard for me to judge them all based on churches because different sects have different churches and hierarchies. Yes, the OT has some nasty things to say about rape, but not all Christians think the OT is right(and I mean the ones who toss out the whole OT, not just pick and chose the parts they like).

The "defining elements" of Christianity are a) Monotheism and b) Jesus. Everything else varies from group to group.

The irony... it burns!

You may be shocked to learn this, but context matters.

Judging them for not holding to beliefs they claim to hold =/= judging them for the content of their book

But judging = judging... isn't that like a bad thing to do? It's hard to tell... the rules are so ambiguous and wishy-washy...

stonicus:grumpfuff: stonicus: grumpfuff: ikanreed: grumpfuff: So by acknowledging that not all Christians are pro-rape, and not all of them give two shiats what the OT says, I'm lumping them all together?

No, you're lumping two imagined types of people into groups all together, either "Christians" who are Christians you approve of, and "Paulists" who are Christians you don't. I don't pretend there's such a thing as a Christian group that has any meaning as to judging people, all I can do is criticize the defining elements of Christianity(Monotheism, the bible and its content, and churches) as having an effect(that I perceive as negative, especially with regard to rape) on attitudes. Those effects aren't consequentialist in nature, but they do exist.

There are plenty of Christians I don't approve of, Paulists are only one sub set. Prosperity Gospel types are another one, for example. "Christians" isn't a designation for the ones I like, it's a designation for people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, I phrased that part poorly.

And it is hard for me to judge them all based on the Bible when not all of them hold it for the literal truth, just like it is hard for me to judge them all based on churches because different sects have different churches and hierarchies. Yes, the OT has some nasty things to say about rape, but not all Christians think the OT is right(and I mean the ones who toss out the whole OT, not just pick and chose the parts they like).

The "defining elements" of Christianity are a) Monotheism and b) Jesus. Everything else varies from group to group.

The irony... it burns!

You may be shocked to learn this, but context matters.

Judging them for not holding to beliefs they claim to hold =/= judging them for the content of their book

But judging = judging... isn't that like a bad thing to do? It's hard to tell... the rules are so ambiguous and wishy-washy...

Being as I'm not a Christian, why should I care what Christianity has to say about judging?